1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is:-

“Whether “debt”, as defined in Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), would include a claim to share certificates ?

This question arises in the context of the maintainability of an application under Section 19 of the said Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (herein after referred to as 'DRT'), wherein the main relief sought by the respondent is the delivery/issuance of share certificates in respect of 5,20,00,000 shares at the face value of Rs 10 each and the benefits accrued on the shares. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that such an application would not be maintainable under the said Act before the said tribunal for the simple reason that the relief of delivery/issuance of share certificates does not amount to recovery of any debt. The expression “debt” as defined in Section 2(g) of the said Act only refers to a liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution etc., during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or financial institution etc., under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, and which is legally recoverable on the date of the application. The contention of the petitioner is that the expression “in cash or otherwise” does not and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, include equity shares in a company. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent is that the word “otherwise” is wide enough to cover equity shares and, therefore, an application under Section 19 of the said Act was maintainable and, consequently, the finding of the DRT to that effect cannot be faulted.

2. The respondent had filed O.A. No.10/2006 on 21.04.2006 under Section 19 of the said Act wherein, it claimed, inter alia, the following reliefs:-

(a) To direct the defendant No.1 to deliver/issue share certificates of 520,00,000 shares of Rs. 10/- each (equivalent to 26% equity of the authorized capital of the defendant No.1 company) alongwith all other benefits accrued out of such shares since the said agreement for which the entire agreed consideration of Rs. 52 crores has been paid to the defendant No.1 company as on 31.12.2002 as per the Package Loan Agreement dated 07.03.2003;

(b) In alternative to pass a decree/certificate to the tune of Rs.780,00,00,000 (Rupees Seven Hundred and Eighty Crores Only) being the value of 520,00,000 shares (being 26% of the equity in defendant No.1) @ Rs.150/- as on 31.01.2006 plus dividend or any other right from the date of issue along with interest at the rate of SBI PLR with quarterly rest against the defendants;

(c) Pass a decree/certificate in favour of the applicant and against the defendant No.1 for an amount of Rs.2,28,64,566/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Six only) (being the balance amount plus interest and penal interest thereon till 28.02.2006) and interest thereon @ 11% p.a. with quarterly rests from 01.03.2006 till the date of payment and additional interest from 01.03.2006.”

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application being IA No. 458/2006 in the said O.A. No.10/2006 before the DRT, wherein the petitioner took the pleas that: (a) the DRT at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction; (b) no cause of action had accrued to the respondent inasmuch as the entire loan amount stood paid on account of exercise of the right of foreclosure; and (c) the application under Section 19 of the said Act for delivery of shares was not maintainable inasmuch as the said relief did not amount to recovery of a debt as defined in Section 2(g) of the said Act. It was contended on the part of the petitioner that the respondent only had the right of recovery of the sum of Rs 175.07 crores as per the Package Loan Agreement of 07.03.2003 between the parties. Since the petitio